if you wish to discuss international law, then we can, but UN resolutions are not law. Under international law, the "occupied" territory is not even occupied. It was not taken in war from a recognized and sovereign state. It is, at best, disputed. Thus, legally, Israel is not an occupier, and force used in resistance to a non-occupier is purely terroristic. But hey, that's just law. We can go back to non-binding resolutions if you'd like.

Click to expand...

I realize that Israel has spent its whole life denying the existence of Palestine. Let's look at some facts on this issue.

The 1949 UN armistice agreements took place after UN resolution 181, after Israel declared itself to be a state, after the end of the British Palestine Mandate, and after the end of the 1948 war.

The agreements mentioned Palestine many times. There was no mention of a place called Israel.

Palestine's international borders were mentioned but no changes were mentioned from when they were defined in 1922. There was no mention of any borders for Israel.

Israel claims that the "Arabs" lost the 1948 war and Israel won land.

That is not true. The UN security Council passed a resolution calling for an armistice. Nobody won and nobody lost that war. No land was transferred and no borders were changed. All land and borders remained the same as they were in 1922.

Poor tinnie has nothing but is game of semantics----for 2000 years "PALESTINE" was simply another name for Israel/judea and the word "PALESTINIAN" meant a jew living there No "arab" was called a "palestinian" and no arab called HIMSELF a "palestinian" Yet NOW simply because a bunch of muslim arabs have DECIDED to call themselves "palestinians' approximately 50 years ago-------TINNIE INSISTS THAT THEY OWN PALESTINE (aka judea/israel)

The government of Israel was mentioned, but the location of Israel was never mentioned.

However the Jordanian agreement did say:

"(d) In the sector from a point on the Dead Sea (MR 1925-0958) to the southernmost tip of Palestine, the Armistice Demarcation Line shall be determined..."

Doesn't Israel say that is part of Israel? When did that happen?

Click to expand...

oh. There was a government of a place that didn't exist. I see. There were ceasefire demarcation lines between 2 parties when one didn't exist.

Your argument is one of nomenclature. You are claiming that because the armistice, a temporary set of cease fire lines built generally around the Mandated Palestine (a British holding), and not intended to be a political border, does not use the name of a political entity, that entity doesn't exist? Borders were to be determined through negotiations and, as Lausanne showed, negotiations were deadlocked.

if you wish to discuss international law, then we can, but UN resolutions are not law. Under international law, the "occupied" territory is not even occupied. It was not taken in war from a recognized and sovereign state. It is, at best, disputed. Thus, legally, Israel is not an occupier, and force used in resistance to a non-occupier is purely terroristic. But hey, that's just law. We can go back to non-binding resolutions if you'd like.

Click to expand...

I realize that Israel has spent its whole life denying the existence of Palestine. Let's look at some facts on this issue.

The 1949 UN armistice agreements took place after UN resolution 181, after Israel declared itself to be a state, after the end of the British Palestine Mandate, and after the end of the 1948 war.

The agreements mentioned Palestine many times. There was no mention of a place called Israel.

Palestine's international borders were mentioned but no changes were mentioned from when they were defined in 1922. There was no mention of any borders for Israel.

Israel claims that the "Arabs" lost the 1948 war and Israel won land.

That is not true. The UN security Council passed a resolution calling for an armistice. Nobody won and nobody lost that war. No land was transferred and no borders were changed. All land and borders remained the same as they were in 1922.

The government of Israel was mentioned, but the location of Israel was never mentioned.

However the Jordanian agreement did say:

"(d) In the sector from a point on the Dead Sea (MR 1925-0958) to the southernmost tip of Palestine, the Armistice Demarcation Line shall be determined..."

Doesn't Israel say that is part of Israel? When did that happen?

Click to expand...

oh. There was a government of a place that didn't exist. I see. There were ceasefire demarcation lines between 2 parties when one didn't exist.

Your argument is one of nomenclature. You are claiming that because the armistice, a temporary set of cease fire lines built generally around the Mandated Palestine (a British holding), and not intended to be a political border, does not use the name of a political entity, that entity doesn't exist? Borders were to be determined through negotiations and, as Lausanne showed, negotiations were deadlocked.

Click to expand...

The mandate had been gone for almost a year but Palestine was still there. The existence of Palestine was separate from the mandate.

Where did it say that the borders were to be determined in negotiations? Have negotiations ever happened?

The government of Israel was mentioned, but the location of Israel was never mentioned.

However the Jordanian agreement did say:

"(d) In the sector from a point on the Dead Sea (MR 1925-0958) to the southernmost tip of Palestine, the Armistice Demarcation Line shall be determined..."

Doesn't Israel say that is part of Israel? When did that happen?

Click to expand...

oh. There was a government of a place that didn't exist. I see. There were ceasefire demarcation lines between 2 parties when one didn't exist.

Your argument is one of nomenclature. You are claiming that because the armistice, a temporary set of cease fire lines built generally around the Mandated Palestine (a British holding), and not intended to be a political border, does not use the name of a political entity, that entity doesn't exist? Borders were to be determined through negotiations and, as Lausanne showed, negotiations were deadlocked.

Click to expand...

The mandate had been gone for almost a year but Palestine was still there. The existence of Palestine was separate from the mandate.

Where did it say that the borders were to be determined in negotiations? Have negotiations ever happened?

Click to expand...

are you not familiar with the Lausanne Conference?
did you not read the armistice agreements (which did not end the state of war)? things like "The Armistice Demarcation Line is not to be construed in any sense as a political or territorial boundary, and is delineated without prejudice to rights, claims and positions of either Party to the Armistice as regards ultimate settlement of the Palestine question."

unless you think that "ultimate settlement" is a reference to future military actions.

Useful Searches

About USMessageBoard.com

USMessageBoard.com was founded in 2003 with the intent of allowing all voices to be heard. With a wildly diverse community from all sides of the political spectrum, USMessageBoard.com continues to build on that tradition. We welcome everyone despite political and/or religious beliefs, and we continue to encourage the right to free speech.

Come on in and join the discussion. Thank you for stopping by USMessageBoard.com!